Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Proctor


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. &mdash; Scientizzle 15:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Bob Proctor

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This particular page was deleted three times based on our speedy deletion criteria. Upon resurfacing a 4th time in January, the speedy was declined and tags were added to attempt to improve the verifiability and sourcing for this WP:BLP. The only "improvements" to the page, as far as I can read, are adding resume-language. Upon searching in google, google news, etc, I remain unconvinced that third party, reliable sources exist to keep this article. There are many many google hits, just doesn't seem to be anything beyond press-release quality or their ilk. Suggesting Deletion. Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  15:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - No reliable sources Fritzpoll (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:RS. I did find an imdb profile, but there remains a severe lack of reliable third party sources. Think outside the box 19:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. The article was delete three times before. -- MisterWiki  talking! :-D  - 20:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment True, but by design, speedy deletion does not create a precedent for future G4 deletion.--Dhartung | Talk 22:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Still looks like an A7 speedy to me, but let's finish the AfD so that we can salt and/or use WP:CSD in future. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and WP:SALT, article fails WP:BIO and creator(s) tenacious. --Dhartung | Talk 22:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong KEEP -
 * 1) There are 486,000 results in Google for Bob Proctor.
 * 2) Immediately after watching The Secret, in which Bob Proctor appears, I wanted to learn more about him. I am not the only viewer of The Secret and millions all over the world have watched this motivational movie. Me and many other people would like to know about him, and therefore a Wikipedia article would invoke information into it. True, the article as it is now lacks information and does not stand as coherent encyclopedic article, but that's why we have the STUB tag. We mark the article as a stub so that people and editors would improve the article. Sometimes I feel that editors here just like the fun of deleting articles. You cannot delete Bob Proctor from the knowledge of the public, he is known and notable enough, and Google and Youtube prove it.
 * 3) The fact that the article was deleted three times before -- and returned three times -- proves that people want this article back. Don't go against the public. We want Bob Proctor in, and he will be created again, sooner or later. Tag the article as a stub and the public will be content. Good information about him will pour in eventually. John Hyams (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Actually that count of hits is wrong by a factor of over 500, and I can't see an independent reliable source among them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * By "factor of over 500" you mean 345,000 hits of the exact phrase "Bob Proctor". Well, that's a lot. If you couldn't find a source, that does not mean that he is not notable, and that people are not looking for info about him. As I already explained above, people are looking for info about him, and that's what Wikipedia is for, to provide encyclopedic information about notable topics/personalities. John Hyams (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, as of today there are 829 hits for the exact phrase, as you will see if you follow my link above. To find the real number of Google hits you have to scroll down all the hits to see exactly how many there are rather than rely on Google's grossly over-inflated estimate. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you've used Google.co.uk, and I've used Google.com, which by far contains more, as you can see here:  John Hyams (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, you have to page to the bottom of the list . That was 826 on google.com when I just tried it. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: i can't find sources that meet our requirements either. - Owlmonkey (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.